coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Belgrade.
7.  On 7 July 2008 the applicant was arrested in Croatia on suspicion of war crimes against the civilian population.
8.  On 9 July 2008 an investigating judge of the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku, hereinafter “the County Court”) ordered his pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1 (1), (2) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding, risk of collusion and the seriousness of the charges).
9.  After the completion of the investigation, the applicant was indicted in the County Court on charges of war crimes against civilians. He was remanded in detention during the proceedings. The period of his detention was extended several times by the decisions of a three-judge panel of the County Court and by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
10.  On 15 March 2011 the County Court found the applicant guilty on charges of war crimes and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
11.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, and on 22 February 2012 it quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the County Court on the grounds of procedural flaws during the trial.
12.  At the same time, the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding) on the grounds that he lived in Serbia and had Serbian nationality, and therefore posed a flight risk if at liberty.
13.  On 2 April 2012 the Supreme Court extended the maximum period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a further year.
14.  On 18 April 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of 2 April 2012 challenging the lawfulness of and grounds for his continued pre-trial detention.
15.  On 1 June 2012 the County Court, after a retrial, found the applicant guilty on charges of war crimes against civilians and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
16.  On the same day the County Court extended the applicant’s detention until the first-instance judgment became final.
17.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision extending his detention, and on 15 June 2012 it dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.
18.  On 20 July 2012 the applicant challenged the decision of the County Court on his detention of 1 June 2012, upheld by the decision of the Supreme Court of 15 June 2012, before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 16-17 above).
19.  On 8 January 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed as ill-founded the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decisions extending his detention until the first-instance judgment became final (see paragraphs 15-18 above).
20.  On 14 January 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 18 April 2012 (see paragraph 14 above) inadmissible on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had been adopted in the meantime on 1 June 2012 (see paragraph 16 above). The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 17 January 2013.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zsámbék.
5.  The applicant lodged a compensation claim for medical negligence against a hospital on 10 October 2006.
6.  The Pest Central District Court dismissed the action.
7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first‑instance decision on 29 November 2011.
8.  The applicant lodged a petition for review. The Kúria upheld the decision on 13 March 2013. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 May 2013.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 14 March 1997 the applicant was interrogated as suspect of breach of duty and other offences.
6.  In the ensuing criminal proceedings, after a remittal, the Budapest Regional Court acquitted the applicant on 5 November 2008.
7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal on 26 November 2009.
8.  The applicant lodged a petition for review; but the Supreme Court rejected the motion on 13 December 2010.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Novaj.
5.  In the context of the protraction of a former administrative procedure concerning a land dispute, the applicant brought an official liability action on 12 May 2003.
6.  The Heves Regional Court rejected the action but, on appeal, the second-instance court quashed the decision and remitted the case to it.
7.  The first-instance court dismissed the claim again on 13 September 2007.
8.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal considered the first-instance judgment as an interlocutory decision and reversed it.
9.  The second-instance court found for the applicant by pronouncing the liability of the administrative authority on 31 January 2008.
10.  Concerning the amount of damages, the first-instance court delivered a judgment on 23 December 2009.
11.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal essentially upheld this decision on 3 June 2010.
4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is detained in Mozzhukha, Kemerovo Region.
5.  On 15 July 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large-scale embezzlement.
6.  On 16 July 2009 he was formally charged with the crime.
7.  On 17 July 2009 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. The judge found that (1) the applicant was suspected of a serious crime, (2) his involvement in embezzlement was confirmed by the evidential material in the case file, (3) he might put pressure on witnesses or (4) he might interfere with investigation.
8.  On 10 November 2009 the Zavodskoy District Court of Kemerovo extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court referred to the gravity of the charges and reiterated that the applicant might threaten witnesses or interfere with investigation. It also observed that the applicant might re‑offend or abscond.
9.  On 26 November 2009 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the detention order of 10 November 2009 on appeal.
10.  The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial until his release on 24 June 2010.
11.  On 5 November 2013 the applicant was found guilty of the charge.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Csengőd.
5.  After the death of the applicant’s father, his second wife brought an action about the inheritance against the applicant on 13 February 2004.
6.  At first instance, the court partly found for the applicant on 21 December 2007 but, on appeal, the Szeged Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, the second-instance court quashed a decision again on 22 February 2010, as confirmed by the Supreme Court on 8 December 2010.
8.  In the proceedings resumed again, the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court partly found for the applicant on 27 May 2010. The judgment became final on 4 September 2010.
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vladičin Han.
6.  The applicant was employed by “DPPK Delišes”, a socially-owned company based in Vladičin Han (“the debtor”).
7.  On 7 October 2003, 28 January 2004 and 21 September 2004 the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant specified sums in respect of salary arrears, social security contributions and procedural costs.
8.  These judgements became final on 6 November 2003, 15 March 2004 and 26 October 2004, respectively.
9.  On 12 August 2011, 2 September 2011 and 17 August 2011, respectively, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court issued enforcement orders with regard to the said judgements.
10.  On 6 March 2013 the Vranje Court of First Instance, acting now as an enforcement court instead of the Vladičin Han Municipal Court, found, with respect to the judgments of 28 January 2004 and 21 September 2004, that the debtor had no assets against which the enforcement could be carried out and requested the applicant to propose a new inventory of the debtor’s assets within 45 days. The said court also warned the applicant that should he fail to do so, or if during the new inventory no assets were to be found, the court could decide to stay the enforcement proceedings.
11.  The applicant did not propose a new inventory of debtor’s assets and by decision of the Vranje Court of First Instance of 10 May 2013 the enforcement proceedings were stayed in respect of the judgments of 28 January 2004 and 21 September 2004.
12.  The enforcement proceedings instituted on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Vladičin Han Municipal Court on 7 October 2003 continued and are still pending.
5.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1960 and 1949, respectively, and live in Novi Pazar.
6.  They were employed by DP “Raška Holding Kompanija” AD, a socially-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”).
7.  On 27 March 2003, 11 December 2003 and 3 October 2005 respectively, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. These judgments became final on 22 April 2003, 16 January 2004 and 1 January 2006 respectively.
8. On 23 May 2003, 25 February 2004 and 20 April 2006 respectively, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgments and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs.
9.  On 5 November 2007, the Tutin Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 20 November 2007.
10. On 19 October 2012, upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Tutin Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs.
11.  On 12 May 2008, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the third applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 22 July 2008.
12. On 13 June 2011, upon the third applicant’s request to that effect, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the third applicant the enforcement costs.
13.  On 5 January 2004 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor.
14.  On 11 September 2013 the Kraljevo Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.
15.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration.
16.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.
5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1966, respectively, and live in Vladičin Han.
6.  They were employed by DP “PK Delišes”, a socially-owned company based in Vladičin Han (hereinafter “the debtor”).
7.  On 20 October 2003, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions. This judgment became both final and enforceable by 31 October 2003.
8. On 31 December 2003 upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs.
9.  On 18 February 2004, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions. This judgment became both, final and enforceable by 11 April 2004.
10. On 4 May 2004, upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs.
11. On 18 February 2004 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor.
12.  On 30 January 2014 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.
13.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration.
14.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Şomoşcheş, Arad County.
6.  At the time of the events in the present case, the applicant was serving a prison sentence for fraud, imposed by two decisions of the Timişoara Court of Appeal on 14 August 2002 and 11 November 2004. He was held mainly in Arad and Timişoara Prisons. In 2008 he spent a few days in cell no. 309 of Jilava Prison. According to the applicant’s description, the cell was dirty and lacked access to warm water.
7.  On several occasions the applicant was kept in the court’s detention rooms where the detainees and guards were allowed to smoke. According to the applicant, he was exposed to passive smoking in the Arad County Court detention room on 15 December 2008.
8.  According to the information provided by the prison administration and forwarded to the Court by the Government, the applicant was held in cell no. 309 in Jilava Prison from 29 May to 1 June 2008 and from 16 to 18 June 2008. The personal space available to the applicant was 1.65 sq. m during the first period of detention and 1.93 sq. m during the second period of detention. Disinfection and pest control were carried out three times per year and the cell was cleaned daily by the inmates. The same rules of hygiene applied to the toilets and shower rooms. The cell benefitted from both natural and artificial light and had beds with mattresses, tables, shelves, and a television set. In an annex to the cell there was a toilet space, consisting of two partitioned toilet bowls and two wash basins. Access to warm water was possible in the common shower room, which contained eighteen showers and to which the inmates had access in privacy once a week.
9.  On 30 November 2008 the applicant was not allowed to vote in the parliamentary elections and, despite his requests for clarifications, the prison authorities gave him no explanations as to whether he was entitled to vote or not. The next day, he informed the Court about what had happened.
10.  On 21 December 2009 the applicant was released on probation. He was arrested again on 2 July 2010 and served the rest of his sentence until 28 March 2011.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Kranj.
6.  He was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 26 May 2010 to 6 November 2012.
7.  For one day he was held in cell no. 89 measuring 16.63 square metres (not including a separate 1.68 square metre sanitary facility) with four other inmates, with 3.33 square metres of personal space.
8.  For seven hundred and eighty-three days he was held in cell no. 82 measuring 16.37 square metres (not including a separate 1.82 square metre sanitary facility). For three hundred and eighty-two days he was held therein with four other inmates with 3.27 square metres of personal space and for one hundred days he was held therein with five other inmates with 2.73 square metres of personal space. For three hundred and one days he shared the cell with two or three other inmates with more than 4 square metres of personal space.
9.  For one hundred and eleven days he was held in cell no. 88 measuring 16.37 square metres (not including a separate 1.82 square metre sanitary facility). For thirty-six days he was held therein with four other inmates with 3.07 square metres of personal space and for fifty-eight days he was held therein with three other inmates with 3.84 square metres of personal space. For seventeen days he shared the cell with two other inmates with more than 4 square metres of personal space.
10.  The cells for six detainees, where the applicant was held, were equipped with three bunk beds with a total of six sleeping places, one large and one small table, six chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees. Detainees could freely open or close windows in cells. On 14 November 2011 the sixth bed was removed.
11.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of Ljubljana prison, material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions, see the judgment in Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 10 to 23, 20 October 2011.
12.  As to the out-of-cell time in the remand section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night, save for two hours of daily outdoor exercise, and an additional two hours per week in a recreation room (see Mandić and Jović, cited above, § 78). According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case, on 9 February 2011 the time spent outdoors was extended to two hours and a half per day and in November 2011 the outside yard was covered by a roof. From 2 July 2012 detainees could spend five hours per day out of their cells.
13.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in July and August 2010 had been approximately 27.5oC, exceeding 30oC on eight days, in July and August 2011 approximately 27oC, exceeding 30oC on ten days and in July and August 2012 it had been approximately 28.6oC, exceeding 30oC on eleven days.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Barcelona.
6.  On 25 April 2005 the Justice of the Peace of the 3rd Court Circuit of the Kirovskiy District of Astrakhan dismissed the applicant’s action against the Astrakhan Regional Military Commissariat in which he sought the increase of monthly pension and military-related benefits.
7.  On 29 June 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the first applicant’s action in part, awarding him a lump sum of 49,215 Russian roubles. The judgment became final.
8.  On 28 February 2006 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 29 June 2005 on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law by the Kirovskiy District Court and upheld the judgment of 25 April 2005.
9.  The second applicant was born in 1939 and lived in Ozersk, Russia. She was the widow of Mr Lev Gayev who died of cancer in 1985.
10.  On 1 June 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk acknowledged that Mr Gayev had been exposed to radioactive emissions following a nuclear accident at the Mayak power plant in 1957.
11.  In August 2006 the applicant sued the Ozersk Social Security Office for the monthly compensation in connection with the loss of the breadwinner.
12.  On 17 October 2006 the Ozersk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region rejected her claim on the ground that she failed to show that she had been financially dependent on her husband on the day of his death.
13.  On 4 December 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed this judgment and partly granted the applicant’s claim. It held that the Ozersk Social Security Office should pay the applicant monthly compensation to be determined in accordance with law.
14.  On 25 July 2007 the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the appeal judgment of 4 December 2006 and remitted the matter to the appeal court, noting that the lower instance court did not duly examined evidence and made wrong application of the substantive law.
15.  The judgment of 4 December 2006 was executed between 1 March 2007 and 1 August 2007.
16.  On 27 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court held a new appeal hearing and rejected the second applicant’s claim.
5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the Lipetsk Region.
6.  From 20 May 2008 to 17 July 2008 the applicant was held in the IZ‑44/1 remand prison in the Kostroma Region in connection with the criminal proceedings against him.
7.  According to the applicant, the three cells in which he was held were severely overcrowded. Cell no. 5 measured eight square meters, was equipped with four sleeping places and accommodated up to seven inmates. Cell no. 7 also offered eight square meters of floor surface, was designed for six detainees but housed up to seven inmates. Finally, cell no. 25 measured twenty-four square meters, had fourteen sleeping places and accommodated up to twenty-five persons.
8.  According to the Government, the applicant had been held in cells nos. 7 and 25. Cell no. 7 measured 14.3 square meters and accommodated three detainees, while cell no. 25 measured 29.2 square meters and housed up to seven detainees. The applicant had an individual sleeping place in both cells.
9.  In support of their submissions the Government provided certificates issued by the remand prison governor in June 2012, written statements by prison warders signed on 13 and 18 June 2012, undated photographs, and pages from the prison population register which recorded, for each day, the number of sleeping bunks and the number of inmates in each cell, and the total number of inmates in the remand prison.
10.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court. It contained, in particular, his complaint about allegedly appalling conditions of his detention in the IZ-44/1 remand prison.
11.  By letter of 14 November 2008 the Registry sent an application package to the applicant, informing him as follows:
“You must send the duly completed application form and any necessary supplementary documents to the Court as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date of the present letter. No extension of this period is possible. If the application form and all the relevant documents are not sent within the above period, the file opened will be destroyed without further warning.”
12.  On 4 May 2009 the applicant dispatched the application form which reached the Registry on 10 August 2009.
5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Ljubljana.
6.  He was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 1 June 2011 to 16 July 2012.
7.  He was held in cell no. 82 measuring 16.37 square metres (not including a separate 1.82 square metres sanitary facility). For two hundred and twelve days he was held therein with four other inmates with 3.27 square metres of personal space and for nine days he was held therein with five other inmates with 2.73 square metres of personal space. For one hundred and ninety days he shared the cell with two or three other inmates with more than 4 square metres of personal space.
8.  The cell for six detainees, where the applicant was held, was equipped with three bunk beds with a total of six sleeping places, one large and one small table, six chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees. Detainees could freely open or close windows in cells. On 14 November 2011 the sixth bed was removed.
9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of Ljubljana prison, material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions, see the judgment in Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 10 to 23, 20 October 2011.
10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the remand section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night, save for two hours of daily outdoor exercise, and an additional two hours per week in a recreation room (see Mandić and Jović, cited above, § 78). According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case, on 9 February 2011 the time spent outdoors was extended to two hours and a half per day and in November 2011 the outside yard was covered by a roof.
11.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5-5.30 p.m.) in July and August 2011 had been approximately 27oC, exceeding 30oC on ten days and in the second half of June and the first half of July 2012 it had been 30oC, exceeding 30oC on twelve days.